|
Appeal No. VA02/2/007 AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
RE: Shop at Map ref: FL.0 (disused) 7/8 Eden Quay, B E F O R E
By Notice of Appeal dated the 11th day
of April, 2002, the appellant appealed against the determination of
the Commissioner of Valuation which fixed a rateable valuation of €228.55
on the relevant property above described. The appeal proceeded by way of an oral hearing that took place in the Circuit Court, Catherine Street, Waterford on the 19th July 2002. Mr Eamon O'Kennedy B. Comm., Principal, O'Kennedy & Co. Valuation and Rating Consultants appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. John Smiley, District Valuer appeared on behalf of the Respondent. In accordance with the Rules of the Tribunal, the parties had prior to the commencement of the hearing, exchanged their précis of evidence and submitted the same to this Tribunal. At the oral hearing both parties having taken the oath, adopted their précis as being their evidence in chief. Submissions were also made. From the evidence so tendered the following emerged as being the facts relevant and material to the appeal. The Property Valuation History Appellant's Valuation Retail warehouse Appellant's Case Mr O'Kennedy referred to his valuation and said that he had established from local auctioneers, that rental levels in 1988 for this development would have been about £2 per sq.ft. (€2.53). He has also consulted the Jones Lang Wooten index of industrial lettings for 1988 and he said that the index had confirmed rental levels in the area at about £2 per sq.ft. He had considered comparative premises such as Ritz Interiors, Sam Hire and Kellers Electrical Wholesale and had valued the subject on a similar basis. In relation to the comparisons set out in his précis of evidence, Mr O'Kennedy said that the finish of Instore was much superior to the subject and that Woodie's location, fronting to both the Cork and Tramore Roads, was far superior. Woodie's also had much more extensive car parking available to it. Mr O'Kennedy's comparisons are attached as appendix 1. Mr O'Kennedy said that he had difficulty understanding the large difference between the valuations of the revising and appeal valuers as there was no material difference in the premises valued. Under cross examination by Mr Smiley, Mr O'Kennedy accepted that the development was both industrial and retail and that Superquinn was located in the development and that the location was good for a retail warehouse. He also agreed that the subject was being used as a warehouse and retail outlet and that the premises had access to adjacent car spaces. Respondent's Case Mr Smiley in his oral evidence said that he had valued the property by reference to comparisons. He adduced three comparisons in his précis of evidence and these are appended to the judgment at Appendix 2. Mr Smiley said that in valuing the premises he had taken into account the state and circumstance of the property as of the valuation date in 2000 and had then backdated the valuation to 1988. He said that his valuation was based on comparisons and that his approach was confirmed by using the rent and the application to it of the Jones Lang Wooten Retail Index. He said that in his opinion the subject was in a better location than Woodies. In relation to Woodies he said that it had been revised in 2001 and a valuation of €68.66 per sq.m applied. No appeal had been taken against this valuation. He said that in his opinion the finish in Woodies and the subject are the same. Findings and Determination Having regard to the evidence adduced and the arguments proffered, the Tribunal considers that the rateable valuation of €215.86 as determined by the Commissioner of Valuation is fair and reasonable. The Tribunal therefore affirms the valuation. |